State v. D. C., 346 P.3d 562

Police responded to a reported residential burglary: an Xbox was stolen; the victim identified youth by name and gave a clothing description and pointed to youth’s nearby house.
Officers located youth about 10 minutes later within a block or two of the victim’s house; his clothing matched the victim’s description and he wore a backpack large enough to carry an Xbox.
As an officer pulled up, youth removed and dropped the backpack and stepped away; officers considered this a furtive gesture suggesting distancing from evidence.
Officers questioned youth; he admitted being at the victim’s house about an hour earlier and that he had played Xbox with the victim; after further questioning he admitted having the Xbox, opened the backpack, and showed it to officers.
The juvenile court suppressed post-confrontation statements (Miranda not given) and held consent to search invalid, but found officers had probable cause to arrest based on facts known before confrontation and admitted the Xbox as inevitably discovered in a search incident to arrest.
Youth appealed, arguing officers lacked objective probable cause before Ballou confronted him; the court of appeals reviewed legal error and affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether officers had objective probable cause to arrest youth before Ballou’s confrontation	Victim ID + youth’s presence near houses and dropping a backpack are insufficient; furtive conduct alone doesn’t amount to probable cause	Totality of circumstances (victim ID, temporal proximity, matching description, backpack size, furtive dropping, youth’s admissions to Toll) provided an objectively reasonable basis to arrest	Court held officers had objective probable cause based on the totality of circumstances and affirmed denial of suppression

State v. Mitchele, 240 Or. App. 86 (Or. Ct. App. 2010) (standard of review for suppression denial: legal error with deference to factual findings)
State v. Pitt, 352 Or. 566 (Or. 2012) (review uses record before trial court when it issued the suppression order)
State v. Vasquez-Villagomez, 346 Or. 12 (Or. 2009) (probable cause under Oregon Constitution has subjective and objective components)
State v. Martin, 260 Or. App. 461 (Or. Ct. App. 2014) (objective probable cause assessed under totality of circumstances known to officer and viewed in light of officer experience)
State v. Rayburn, 246 Or. App. 486 (Or. Ct. App. 2011) (probable cause requires showing it is more likely than not defendant had requisite mental state)
State v. Owens, 302 Or. 196 (Or. 1986) (search incident to arrest under Article I, §9 requires probable cause relating to a crime and reasonableness)
State v. Jacobs, 187 Or. App. 330 (Or. Ct. App. 2003) (furtive movements alone do not establish probable cause but may contribute when combined with other evidence)
State v. Flores, 58 Or. App. 437 (Or. Ct. App. 1982) (furtive gestures combined with attempts to conceal can provide probable cause)